The Scotsman
How to ask one question
+++++++++++++++
The Electoral Commission is assessing the proposed question for the independence referendum:
"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
The Commission must assess how intelligible the question is. They have an unenviable task!
The question is short, is written in plain language and uses short words. So far, so good.
It uses the more familiar “country” instead of the legally more precise “state”. But that has attracted some criticism.
Some don’t like “Do you agree …” as that invites agreement with the statement that follows. They say that would bias the result.
Others see the omission of any reference to leaving the United Kingdom as a major defect.
But the real problem for the Electoral Commission is much deeper. What does the question really mean?
None of the possible constitutional options has yet been described other than in broad outline. But well before the referendum those promoting different constitutional options will surely set out as clearly and as accurately as they can what the options are and what they consider the consequences of those options would be.
Of course, there will be debate and disagreement about the content of those descriptions, but the options should be clear
But this is where we encounter the real problem with the intelligibility of the proposed question.
The question asks specifically about Scotland being (becoming) an independent country. By 2014 that option will have been fully fleshed out by those promoting independence, so the significance of a “YES” vote should be clear (or at least, as clear as it can be). But what would be the significance of a “NO” vote? That option is very far from clear, and until it is clear, there can be no certainty of any accuracy.
That might seem illogical because a “YES” vote for independence means “change”, so logically a “NO” vote should mean “no change”. But it does not look as though it will be at all clear what exactly a “NO” vote would mean.
Those who are supporting the campaign against independence are divided in what they say they want. One such political party wants “Home Rule” based on a federal UK model; one party has set up its own commission to suggest what it might want; another has said it wants the “status quo” (i.e. the progressive implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, but no more) although its UK leader has suggested there could be future discussions about unspecified “more devolution”.
The proposed question appears simple enough, but it does not and it cannot encompass with any clarity or accuracy the divergent views and the diversity of consequences that would have to be represented by the “NO” option.
We have got ourselves into this mess because all the politicians who have insisted on “one simple question” have ignored the views of the electors in Scotland. For several years the electors have shown that there is significant support for three possible constitutional options: “status quo”, “more devolution” and “independence”.
This is the reality that has to be addressed. In this situation it is impossible to see how any one simple “YES”–“NO” question could be considered properly intelligible.
+++++++++++++
Dr James Gilmour is a member of the Electoral Reform Society.
Article text = 525words
10 December 2012